Monday, February 27, 2017

Q1: In terms of SERVICE to YOU, how are 80-20 PAC & 80-20 EF different?

A: PAC has teeth. For example, when two AsAm politicians in CA, a state Senator and an Assemblyman, betrayed our community's interest in the anti-SCA-5 campaign in CA in 2015, 80-20 PAC declared the day after defeating SCA-5, to drive them out of politics. Click Q3 part 2 to verify. Both were out of politics within a few months. Click Q3 to verify. Result?When PAC speaks out to protect your rightful interests, politicians, including presidential candidates, listen.

PAC also knows how to say thank you. In 2008, when presidential candidate Obama answered PAC's questionnaire with 6 yeses, we rewarded him with a bloc vote of 68 to 31*. In 2012, when Pres. Obama had fulfilled most of his promises to AsAms (1 and 2), PAC rewarded him with a 73 to 26 bloc vote*.

EF does political research and education. It is NOT allowed to take political actions. However, the research and educational work it does are absolutely necessary to enable 80-20 PAC to take effective political actions such as those described in the 1st paragraph. For example, this e-newsletter was sent by EF to help you understand how 80-20 helps you.

Q2: In terms of making DONATION to 80-20, how are PAC and EF different?

A: PAC is NOT not a 501 c-3.

EF is. So your donation to EF is tax deductible, saving you money.

Q3: Why am I still receiving reminders to join PAC? I've donated to SELF (Self Empowerment Long-term Fund) and other 80-20 causes already. A:EF and PAC are SEPARATE organizations, sharing the same goals, but required by law to use different methodology.

EF may do political education only. It raises money through SELF and the petition, but it may NOT transfer its money to PAC for political actions. PACmay use all means to affect politics, including the taking of actions to reward or punish politicians. Its primary source of financial income is through membership dues.

Q4: What do I gain by being a PAC member?

A: You gain a share of the control over 80-20 PAC. The entire PAC membership is the top boss of 80-20 PAC. Bylaw amendments must get the approval of a majority of the membership. Officers & board members must be elected by members. Additionally, as a member you can run for an officer and/or board position.

Philosophically, your biggest gain is the satisfaction you receive that you are paying YOUR SHARE to help make our community politically stronger.

REMINDER: S. B. Woo has stepped down from the presidency of 80-20 PAC, although he is still the president of 80-20 Educational Foundation.

"Now, the real problem has become clear. Asian Americans might be against "preferences." What we should understand, however, is that the vast bulk of such preferences operate to benefit whites over Asian Americans, not African Americans and Hispanics."

Being a law professor, he also stated his legal objection to asking AsAm applicants to yield 140 SAT pts to their white peers.

"There is no good basis for saying that whites were discriminated against by Asian Americans historically, such that a remedy is necessary; or that they suffer some disadvantage vis-a-vis Asian Americans today, such that mitigation is needed."

To Cause More Positive Changes

Shamefully, most AsAm "civil rights" orgs. supported "race -preference" admissions, then and now; in their press releases and in legal actions. Want to write to such organizations and ask them to reconsider their positions? Grassroots pressure is the most influential persuasion, although most of these orgs obtain an overwhelming % of their funding from outside of our community. Money talks.

Sojoin 80-20's petition now! We need 100,000 signers in another 1.5 years to demonstrate the united support of our community for this unique and seeking the middle ground proposal for college admissions. Otherwise, the $10 per petitioner donation will be returned. Note: My wife and I each donated $250 to this petition.

Monday, February 13, 2017

1) In 2016, all presidential campaigns were OPAQUE to American voters. An ordinary citizen would not have been able to find a phone or fax number, or an email address, or a website to make a suggestion to a campaign. Even donors and volunteers for future events could not find a way to make a suggestion. In 2008, citizen voices were still eagerly sought. Why the drastic change? Implications?

2) The near unanimity of the media endorsements plus the recommendation of the top political leaders of BOTH parties, failed to elect Hillary Clinton. Is there any institution that the American voters still respect? On the other hand, one could see a silver lining from the above -- America is still a young nation capable of changing its course dramatically.

3) Although the election is over, the partisan fever has risen higher among some Democratic voters. Everyone hates the political gridlock in D.C. However, are we aware that theULTIMATE reason for the political gridlock in D.C. is the partisan fever of voters like you and me?

b) Candidates either expected us to be too sophisticated to believe in their campaign rhetoric, or too dumb to know that we're being fooled, or too cynical to care. [Note: Some of us might take on all 3 of the above characteristics when it came to defending our favorite candidate.]

"Two Sons of China", which is based on a true story in China during WWII. It won the Best Book Award from the Chinese American Librarians Association a couple years ago and some other awards. I bought a copy. :-)

Although the petition presents a thoughtful, unique, middle-of-the-road solution to college admissions, it is failing. Click here to see that it has only about 2,000 petitioners thus far, including that of Andrew Lam. It must get 50 times more signers in 1.5 years or fail. Why is it failing? Because many of us don't care enough about our own rights and those of our children.

Won't YOU join the petition? Your $10 donation will be returned to you, if the petition fails to reach 100,000 petitioners in another 1.5 years.

S. B. Woo

President and a volunteer for the past 18 years80-20 Educational Foundation, Inc, a 501 C-3 organization,http://www.80-20educationalfoundation.org/index.php

Monday, February 6, 2017

We interrupt the series of "Know the 2016 election?" to share GOOD NEWS.This newsletter may enhance your awareness of the significance of your money and support. You enabled 80-20 to form an UNIQUE and independent AsAm view on college admissions & make it heard nation-wide.

A Powerful Idea Is Spreading

Most AsAm orgs. only follow mainstream views. For example, they either support "race-preference" admissions or oppose it. However, 80-20 having studied the college admissions issue carefully for years dared to form an UNIQUE, independent, and middle-of-the-road AsAm view. Here is how the idea has spread:

(1) On 8/1/2016, 80-20 EF took this unique & middle-of-the-road position: We would embrace diversity, but oppose strongly the discriminatory practice by elite colleges, which force AsAm applicants to yield 140 SAT points to white applicants. To spread the idea, EF starteda petition.

(2) On 9/14/2016, Harvard's own campus paper, Harvard Crimson, published an editorial to advocate this brand new idea.

(3) 7 days ago, The NY Times published an Op Ed supporting the same concept. The title is:

Excerpts: " ... the percentage of Asians in Harvard's student body had remained about 16 percent to 19 percent for two decades even though the Asian-American percentage of the population had more than doubled. . . . .

To explain that disparity some might cite the myth that while Asian students have high test scores, they lack the well-rounded extracurricular interests and activities that colleges prize. But the study isolated race as a factor by controlling for variables like academic performance, legacy status, social class, type of high school (public or private), athletics and other extracurricular activities. So that 140-point gap is between a white student and an Asian student who differonlyby race. ...." (emphasis added)

The Significance of Your Support

Here is how the college admissions battle has developed:

(1)In 2009, Espenshade et al of Princeton published their book. The most important of its findings, so far as AsAm interests are concerned, was hardly reported in the media. The important finding is: To gain equal access to elite colleges, AsAm students need to yield 140 SAT pts. to white applicants*, 270 to Hispanics and 450 to blacks. Shamefully, most AsAm "civil rights" orgs. supported "race-preference" admissions, then and now. What a shame.

(2)In April, 2012, after a national survey of 50,000+ AsAms, 80-20 resolvedit would fight the outrageous discrimination against AsAm youths.

(3)In 2013, Ed Blum, the architect of most of the legal battles against "race-preference" admissions, filed his first "Fisher vs. U. of TX (1)". 80-20 filed an amicus brief, to support that effort.

(4) Thus far, our side has lost all the legal battles, including Fisher (2) and the complaint filed by the AsAm Coalition for Education.

(5) However, since 2012 the handwriting is on the wall, that we'll eventually win. Why?

(a) All such lawsuits have increasingly focused on the discrimination against AsAm students, and

(b) Our side has steadfastly won the battle in the "Court of Public Opinion." Evidence? The newspaper headlines have changed their tones greatly over the years:

Note that headlines are normally written by the editors, although the reporters or authors provided the contents. Smell the shifting wind!

Winning Soon??? Do Your Share!

When the vacant seat in the Supreme Court will have been filled by a Trump nominee, our chance to win the court battles will improves drastically. Do you want to beat the discrimination back? DO YOUR SHARE.

Join 80-20's petition now! We need 100,000 signers in another 1.5 years to demonstrate the united support of our community for this UNIQUE and middle-of-the-road proposal for college admissions. Otherwise, the $10 per petitioner donation will be returned. Thanks.

*AsAm students mostly lose seats to white applicants, because there are so many white applicants who are less than 140 pts below AsAm applicants. AsAms students don't lose many seats to Hispanics and blacks, in-spite-of the 270 & 450 pts disadvantages.

Wednesday, February 1, 2017

In Parts (1), (2) and (3) we cited Hillary Clinton's (HC's) huge advantages in money raised, endorsements by media, and party unity. We also discussed why all that didn't help her. In part (3), we also cited facts to show that HC was not a good campaigner, although she is highly respected by her fellow politicians. We now focus on a more sensitive topic -- Did HC make good political decisions?

. Does HC Make Good Political Decisions?

The answer to this question is subjective. Hence, I provide NO answers, ONLY questions. I hope that each of you will examine the facts, then rely on your own prowess at logic and deduction to form your own conclusions.

1) Was her vote for the optional war in Iraq, to support the Arab Spring, and to actively interfere in Syria's civil war good decisions?

2) Did she ever look at her campaign rally videos & compare them with those of Sanders & Trump in terms of audience size & enthusiasm? Did she do self-evaluation - a necessary exercise because subordinates normally hesitate to point out what would really hurt the boss emotionally?

3) Did she have the ability to walk in others' shoes, including her opponents' shoes? Did she have a sense of "entitlement" causing her to use "a basket of deplorables" to describe DT's supporters?When Madeleine Albright, standing next to HC, stated "There is a special place in hell for women who don't help each other," did she get HC's approval first? They were both pros in campaigns. Fold the above into the fact that hercampaign planned to explode fireworksover the Hudson Riverthe night of the election.

4) HC is "candor deficient", yet she hid her health situation when diagnosedto have pneumonia. Did she know that she must protect her weakest flank?

5) Did HC apply her immense resources wisely? She received 65 million votes nationally. However, had she applied her resources to drive out an additional 11,000 votes in Michigan; 23,000 votes in Wisconsin; and 45,000 in Pennsylvania, she would have been the president. Look at the following shocking facts.